Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

They are doing it for us


bushwacked
 Share

Recommended Posts

Average Player Salary 1990 - $356,000

Average Player Salary 2009 - $1,896,000

Salaries have increased by 500%

 

Average Ticket Price 1991 - $25

Average Ticket Price 2010 - $76.47

Tickets have increased by 300%

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Average Player Salary 1990 - $356,000

Average Player Salary 2009 - $1,896,000

Salaries have increased by 500%

 

Average Ticket Price 1991 - $25

Average Ticket Price 2010 - $76.47

Tickets have increased by 300%

Good think the only money they have coming in is the ticket price. :wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good think the only money they have coming in is the ticket price. :wacko:

 

That's one way to look at it. But, not what Goodell was talking about, nor what the article was talking about. The article was about rising ticket prices and Goodell's response was in regard to ticket prices.

 

Goodell has stated that they can't keep shifting the burden onto the fan, with higher ticket prices, which apparently they have not done. Ticket prices have increased by 300% salaries by 532%, they have not shifted the burden to the fan, proportionally, and will strive to continue not to do so.

 

So, what is inaccurate about Goodell's statement? .

Edited by SEC=UGA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also don't see the problem here. This is a very real and pragmatic approach. I don't know why people keep trying to translate intent on the words someone issued - are feelings really this frayed over a completely reasonable business issue?

 

He said they can't keep shifting the burden to the fans. It's called a risk analysis. Every business determines the point at which raising prices will return a decrease in profits and they (A) stay as close to that number as possible ( B ) push to improve the product so as to be able to raise this number. It's very possible that they realize or believe this to be an unsustainable model, and they are probably right. You don't make $9 billion a year without knowing a thing or two about running a business. We all have a breaking point of how much we'll pay and businesses are wise to research, understand, and push that number without breaking it. It's how business works.

Edited by flemingd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's one way to look at it. But, not what Goodell was talking about, nor what the article was talking about. The article was about rising ticket prices and Goodell's response was in regard to ticket prices.

 

Goodell has stated that they can't keep shifting the burden onto the fan, with higher ticket prices, which apparently they have not done. Ticket prices have increased by 300% salaries by 532%, they have not shifted the burden to the fan, proportionally, and will strive to continue not to do so.

 

So, what is inaccurate about Goodell's statement? .

 

Don't know that it's about being inaccurate as it is the perception of what he's saying. If the league solely relied on ticket prices, then maybe things we be easier to show. As we all know, most of us here probably have at least one jersey, at $79.99, team pennants, buy food at games which they get a cut from, etc. Thanks for saving me money on tickets, while all of the "other ancillary" items I buy go up in price and line the pockets of the owners and players. $9 billion in revenue is not just from ticket sales, Rog. If player salaries were 100% dependent on ticket sales, I could see his stance holding water. While they technically haven't shifted that price onto the face value of a ticket, they find other ways - just like airline bag fees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't know that it's about being inaccurate as it is the perception of what he's saying. If the league solely relied on ticket prices, then maybe things we be easier to show. As we all know, most of us here probably have at least one jersey, at $79.99, team pennants, buy food at games which they get a cut from, etc. Thanks for saving me money on tickets, while all of the "other ancillary" items I buy go up in price and line the pockets of the owners and players. $9 billion in revenue is not just from ticket sales, Rog. If player salaries were 100% dependent on ticket sales, I could see his stance holding water. While they technically haven't shifted that price onto the face value of a ticket, they find other ways - just like airline bag fees.

 

The question and answer was with regard to ticket prices. Yes, the NFL has other ways to make money and they do an excellent job at it because the "true fans" will eat the stuff up regardless.

 

Face it though, the SINGLE LARGEST COST TO THE NFL OWNERS IS THE PLAYERS SALARIES AND BENEFITS. In an effort to curtail ticket prices and the price of merchandise to the fan and still make a decent profit margin the owners are looking for places to cut expenses, where can they save the most money, by decreasing, or not increasing as heavily, their one major expense, the players.

 

This is much like the current US budget argument, if we don't increase revenue we are going to have to cut spending. But, in reality the only way to be completely healthy is by doing both at as little cost to the public as possible. You can't fix the budget simply by cutting spending or simply by raising taxes on the wealthy, every thing has to be on the table. Further, you can't just control the budget by cutting out the small stuff, you gotta go after the big things.

 

So what has the NFL done, both. They have increased revenue through the TV deals and are trying to cut costs by signing a new CBA with the players, the single largest line item.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question and answer was with regard to ticket prices. Yes, the NFL has other ways to make money and they do an excellent job at it because the "true fans" will eat the stuff up regardless.

 

Face it though, the SINGLE LARGEST COST TO THE NFL OWNERS IS THE PLAYERS SALARIES AND BENEFITS. In an effort to curtail ticket prices and the price of merchandise to the fan and still make a decent profit margin the owners are looking for places to cut expenses, where can they save the most money, by decreasing, or not increasing as heavily, their one major expense, the players.

 

This is much like the current US budget argument, if we don't increase revenue we are going to have to cut spending. But, in reality the only way to be completely healthy is by doing both at as little cost to the public as possible. You can't fix the budget simply by cutting spending or simply by raising taxes on the wealthy, every thing has to be on the table. Further, you can't just control the budget by cutting out the small stuff, you gotta go after the big things.

 

So what has the NFL done, both. They have increased revenue through the TV deals and are trying to cut costs by signing a new CBA with the players, the single largest line item.

 

(asinine rhetorical question from me) - are you insinuating ticket prices will go down if the owners get a larger share of the revenue then? Let's say that increased share not only covers the increased costs, but also adds more revenue to their bottom line/profit. Of course not. What would happen if ALL owners dropped ticket prices 50% "for the fans"? Would the players, in turn, reduce their salaries by ANY %? Obviously not... they're going to tell the owners "you're the ones who dropped the ticket prices, YOU figure out where to make up that revenue". But if the revenues (ticket prices) increase, NOW the players want to share equitably? Are they "partners" as they claim to be, or are they not?

 

And I understand where there #1 cost for the league lies - although I'm curious how close a $1 billion stadium lies to being the #1 cost for an owner as well...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I might buy into this if we hadn't been fed this this same bull before... Goodell claimed to be "speaking for the fans" wanting an 18-game season, but when the question is phrased as whether you want to pay full price for 2 preseason games or 2 more season games, of course anybody is going to say yes... However, with the 18-game idea taken off the table, Goodell has never even mentioned the alternative that is even more fair to the fan's pocketbook: lowering the price of meaningless preseason games.

 

He hasn't because they have no interest of passing on any savings to the fans. So why am I supposed to believe that in this case, the savings are going to go into my pocket and not theirs? What has the NFL done that makes anyone think that's the case?

 

Regardless of whether Goodell's statement could be accurate or hold true, I see this as nothing more than rhetoric to convince us that what's being down is somehow in our interest. I'm sorry, but this BS of "passing on savings to the consumer" is a big load of crap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well of course they're not "doing it for us", they're doing it for their bottom line long term. but they also understand the basic economics of supply and demand, and realize that at necessarily higher prices there is less demand for their product. this puts weaker franchises in weaker markets at risk, we see that happening already. higher costs means higher prices, and that potentially hurts their bottom line long term. it seems right to seek a more sustainable model for the long term health of their business. goodell's statement on its face makes sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(asinine rhetorical question from me) - are you insinuating ticket prices will go down if the owners get a larger share of the revenue then? Let's say that increased share not only covers the increased costs, but also adds more revenue to their bottom line/profit. Of course not. What would happen if ALL owners dropped ticket prices 50% "for the fans"? Would the players, in turn, reduce their salaries by ANY %? Obviously not... they're going to tell the owners "you're the ones who dropped the ticket prices, YOU figure out where to make up that revenue". But if the revenues (ticket prices) increase, NOW the players want to share equitably? Are they "partners" as they claim to be, or are they not?

 

And I understand where there #1 cost for the league lies - although I'm curious how close a $1 billion stadium lies to being the #1 cost for an owner as well...

 

No, ticket prices and merchandise will continue to increase regardless of whether this happens or not. The price increase will probably not be as dramatic, however. Further, there are a bunch of considerations that go into marleting these items (tickets, merchandise, beer....), these guys know there is a price point at which they will actually start losing money, they will try to not eclipse this point.

 

With regard to the stadiums, these are a huge cost as well, but a good bit of it, in many cases (excluding GB, Det, Dal, etc...) is shouldered by the taxpayers/municipality in which the team is located. If you look at the teams that have recently shouldered the "Lion's Share" of the stadium their profits are near zero or negative in many cases. These are the owners that are in desperate need of the infusion of dollars that the owners are curently fighting for. Further, during this recessionary period NFL revenues are decreasing, but the owners are locked into player salaries that aren't decreasing, the owners need a way to pocket more revenue over the next few years. The way they paln on doing it is by renegotiating the portion of profits received by the players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I might buy into this if we hadn't been fed this this same bull before... Goodell claimed to be "speaking for the fans" wanting an 18-game season, but when the question is phrased as whether you want to pay full price for 2 preseason games or 2 more season games, of course anybody is going to say yes... However, with the 18-game idea taken off the table, Goodell has never even mentioned the alternative that is even more fair to the fan's pocketbook: lowering the price of meaningless preseason games.

 

He hasn't because they have no interest of passing on any savings to the fans. So why am I supposed to believe that in this case, the savings are going to go into my pocket and not theirs? What has the NFL done that makes anyone think that's the case?

 

Regardless of whether Goodell's statement could be accurate or hold true, I see this as nothing more than rhetoric to convince us that what's being down is somehow in our interest. I'm sorry, but this BS of "passing on savings to the consumer" is a big load of crap.

 

With regard to the preseason games. It costs just as much money to open up that stadium and to plan those games as it does a regular season game, they aren't "cheaper" to put on than a regualr season game. Besides, the pre-season games are 60% empty (at least here in ATL) don't you think if they thought that by lowering the price of a ticket by 20 bucks that they would sell out 90% of the stadium that they would do so? They'd make more money. The fact is that they know that even by lowering the price they aren't going to sell enough tickets to cover their costs of that game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ticket prices will not go down if they are able to pay the players less.

 

Agreed. Ticket prices will be whatever the market will bear. However, there is no offer that has been forth by the owners that has been made public that gives players anything less than a 5% annual raise for the near future, so making a statement about paying players less is fairly nonsensical.

 

That said, it does appear that an optimum is being reached. We are seeing blackouts in some few areas and I would guess as the economy remains in poor condition that we'll start seeing more and more of this. Corporations will purchase more of the premium seating, but they won't ante up for what are probably 60% or better of the seats in most stadiums.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Owners are trying to maximize profits. if they could charge more and get people to pay it they would. Ticket prices will not go down if they are able to pay the players less. If you believe that, i've got a bridge to sell you.

 

well of course it would be pretty stupid to think that the price of something that has increased 300% over the last 20 years is suddenly going to drop. especially where there is very little evidence that any of their costs, including player salaries, will be going down. the question is how much upward pressure will there be on ticket prices if player salaries continue increasing at an even greater rate. as those prices go higher still, fans stop being interested in buying tickets. they're already well past that point for many fans, but at some point the waning demand really starts cutting in to your business model.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With regard to the preseason games. It costs just as much money to open up that stadium and to plan those games as it does a regular season game, they aren't "cheaper" to put on than a regualr season game. Besides, the pre-season games are 60% empty (at least here in ATL) don't you think if they thought that by lowering the price of a ticket by 20 bucks that they would sell out 90% of the stadium that they would do so? They'd make more money. The fact is that they know that even by lowering the price they aren't going to sell enough tickets to cover their costs of that game.

 

Good points all around. Ed Jones Dome here in STL is the same. A part (probably the illogical part) of me says, open the gates for free or $10 general admission. Don't include them in the annual ticket packages. Make them "for the fans". Ahhhhh... crazy, wishful thinking, right? LOL.

 

As for the publicly funded stadiums, we are also very well aware of how all that works out here in STL too. And we're finding out about the "fine print" that came along with it too.

 

And FWIW, I think I might have come across as insinuating owners would reduce ticket prices. That was most assuredly NOT my message, I was just trying to use that as an illustration on how the players say that they are "partners" with the owners. Until, of course, the time comes to share in losses (IF there ever were any), decreases in revenue, or increased operating costs.

 

You also mention ":but the owners are locked into player salaries that aren't decreasing". Is the salary cap set by the league alone, or by the league AND the NFLPA?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information